” On Saturday, the West Virginia House passed a bill that would withdraw the state from the Common Core State Standards adopted by the West Virginia State Board of Education in 2010 and the Next Generation Content Standards and Objective adopted in 2011.

Introduced by Rep. Amanda Pasdon (R-Morgantown), House Bill 2934 (HB2934) directs the State Board of Education to repeal those standards, forbids the use of Common Core-aligned assessment including, but not limited to, Smarter Balanced Assessments, and ensures the standards are revised so West Virginia students will be adequately prepared for college and careers. The House vote was 75-19.

The bill requires the following by July 16, 2015:

(A) The Common Core Standards as approved by the Board in May, 2010, and the subsequent Next Generation Content Standards and Objectives as approved by the Board in August 2011, are repealed;

(B) No assessments designed to assess student learning based on the common core standards, including but not limited to the Smarter Balanced Assessment, will be used in West Virginia public schools;

” Former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul says secession is happening and it’s “good news.” Paul later predicted the states would stop listening to federal laws.

“ I would like to start off by talking about the subject and the subject is secession and, uh, nullification, the breaking up of government, and the good news is it’s gonna happen. It’s happening,” Paul, the father of potential Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul, told a gathering at the libertarian Mises Institute in late January. The event Paul was speaking at was titled “Breaking Away: The Case for Secession.”

Paul said secession would not be legislated by Congress, but would be de facto, predicting “when conditions break down…there’s gonna be an alternative.” “

” Today, voters in Arizona approved a ballot measure that follows James Madison’s advice to stop federal overreach. With 80% reporting, the tally held steady and increasing at 51-49%.

Approved was Proposition 122, a state constitutional amendment that enshrines the anti-commandeering doctrine in the state constitution. The language amends the state constitution to give Arizona the ability to “exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the Constitution.”

This language is consistent with the advice of James Madison, who wrote in Federalist #46:

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. [emphasis added] “

” Across the country, a thriving dissatisfaction with the U.S. government is prompting a growing spate of bills in state legislatures aimed at defying federal control over firearms – more than 200 during the last decade, a News21 investigation found.

Particularly in Western and Southern states, where individual liberty intersects with increasing skepticism among gun owners, firearms are a political vehicle in efforts to ensure states’ rights and void U.S. gun laws within their borders. State legislators are attempting to declare that only they have the right to interpret the Second Amendment, a movement that recalls the anti-federal spirit of the Civil War and civil-rights eras.

“ I think the president and the majority of Congress, both in the House and Senate, are just completely out of touch with how people feel about Second Amendment rights,” said Missouri state Sen. Brian Nieves, who has fought for bills to weaken the federal government’s authority over firearms in his state.

In Idaho, the Legislature unanimously passed a law to keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. In Kansas, a law passed last year says federal regulation doesn’t apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting “firearms freedom” from the U.S. government since 2010.

A News21 analysis shows 14 such bills were passed by legislators in 11 states, mainly in Western states, along with Kansas, Tennessee and Alaska. Of those, 11 were signed into law, though one was later struck down in court. In Montana, Missouri and Oklahoma, three others were vetoed.”

” A recent Chicago Tribune editorial targets a new fully informed jury bill introduced by the New Hampshire House of Representatives. The bill would strengthen the current state law passed in 2012 that allows lawyers “to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” The editorial is noteworthy, because it deploys the most common legal establishment objections to jury nullification.

Objection #1: Jury nullification was a tool of the Jim Crow South

It begins by reminding readers of one of the most horrific examples of racial injustice in the Jim Crow South.

In 1955, two white men went on trial in Mississippi for the murder of Emmett Till, a black 14-year-old from Chicago who supposedly had been too friendly to a white woman. In the Jim Crow South, there was never much chance of conviction, and they were acquitted by a jury that deliberated for barely an hour. The two men, free of the danger of prosecution, later acknowledged their guilt. That case and many like it are worth keeping in mind in any consideration of the place of jury nullification in the criminal justice system.

Let there be no mistake about it, racist juries routinely failed to deliver justice in the Jim Crow South. And jury injustice sometimes happens today when, for example, juries acquit police caught on video brutalizing defenseless citizens. So how can advocates reconcile the abuse of jury nullification with its noble history of delivering justice in the face of unjust laws?

As Paul Butler, a Georgetown University law professor and former federal prosecutor suggests, “nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else.”

Moreover, according to legal scholar Clay Conrad, the jury is a convenient scapegoat for institutional injustices. After the trial is over, the jury doesn’t exist. Jurors return home and go back to work. So when police, prosecutors, judges, and even lawmakers are incompetent or malicious, they can blame the jury to divert attention from their failures.”

” The campaign to stop federal violations of the Second Amendment at the state and local level got two big boosts late last week with the introduction of the Second Amendment Preservation Act in Arizona and an important endorsement for a similar bill pending in Florida.

Along with eight other sponsors, Arizona state Senator Kelli Ward introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act in the Grand Canyon State. SB1294 prohibits the state from enforcing “any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.”

“ We’ve sat back and allowed the federal government to trample the Constitution long enough,” Ward said. “We’re going to pass this bill and stop the state of Arizona from helping the feds violate your rights.”

The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot “commandeer” or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations – constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. The 1997 case, Printz v. US, serves as the modern cornerstone.”

For more on the state’s efforts to rein in rampant Federal overreach check out the links below . There are movements and proposed legislation in nearly two dozen states in the works as of this writing with the express goal of reasserting our founding principles of State’s rights , limited government and strict adherence to our Constitution .

” The Florida legislature will consider a bill that would prohibit any state agency from cooperating with enforcement of any federal gun laws – past, present or future.

Rep. Dan Eagle (R-Cape Coral) introduced HB733 on Monday. The Second Amendment Preservation Act declares that no agent of the state or its political subdivisions may participate with or assist federal agents in the enforcement of federal firearms laws, or provide material support of any kind to federal agents in the enforcement of these laws. State agents and/or contractors who knowingly participate in or provide support for the enforcement of federal firearms laws would be subject to dismissal.

“ The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly provides that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Time and time again, Florida has proven that we have the best solutions to our own issues, whether it be healthcare, education, or our balanced budget, which is accomplished without raising taxes. When it comes to protecting our fundamental Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I believe it is best left to be handled by Floridians for Floridians,” Eagle said.

God bless this young lady . She makes us proud of our youth and at the same time a bit ashamed that we didn’t produce a video of this power ourselves . Thank God someone did . Please share this as widely as you can and support here by visiting her website and following her on social media through the links above . You can also “like” her Facebook page here . As she says “If it’s wrong to do it without a uniform , it’s wrong to do it with a uniform”

” Connecticut State Police feel compelled to remind citizens that it is their duty under the state’s draconian new citizen control laws to register their most effective self-defense firearms and standard capacity magazines for more efficient future government confiscation:

The state police have sent a reminder for gun owners that an important deadline is looming for two key parts of this year’s gun control law.

Owners of guns classified as assault weapons must get assault weapon certificates by Dec. 31. They must submit an application for a certificate by that date along with proof that they bought the weapon before the law took effect April 4.

Owners of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds face the same Dec. 31 deadline. They too must submit an application form along with proof they owned the magazine before the law took effect. Note, even though the law allows people to keep their already-owned large-capacity magazines if they register them, it forbids loading them with more than 10 rounds at a time except in their homes or at a shooting range.

Reason suggests that the state has sent out this “reminder” because the supermajority of citizens are ignoring the blatantly unconstitutional registration law, just as Americans have historically chosen to ignore previous registration laws. American citizens have apparently never complied by registering more than 25% of those firearms that were required to be registered by law (Illinois handgun registration in the 1970s was the dubious high-point), and at least 90-percent of Americans in other states ignore these more blatant citizen control laws designed to do little more than weaken citizens before the power of the government.”

Where would we be without the Boston Tea Party ? Harriet Tubman ? Elizabeth Cady Stanton ? Martin Luther King ? Virtually every major societal change of the past two centuries has been brought about by private citizens working tirelessly for what they know is right by employing the time-worn methods of civil disobedience . It is as American a tradition as is the ownership of firearms .

We are not a compliant people , nor do we bow down to the whims and edicts of our ruling class . History shows that the American people are imbued with a more finely tuned moral compass than are the moral reprobates typically elected to manage our affairs .

” I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not so desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.”

Henry David Thoreau

Here’s an update on gun registration and compliance from one of Connecticut’s northeast rivals in the Statism Game :

Reason just published this piece regarding New York’s own registration scheme and how it is going , or not going , we just don’t know as the State refuses to release any statistics on the number of residents that have complied with Cuomo’s , passed in the dead of night , without hearings or debate , SAFE Act .

As even a fool can recognize , NY’s registration plan cannot be going well because if it was we all know that Cuomo and his goons would be singing from the rooftops about their successful ploy to save the state from mass murder .

Below is a brief quote that explains how Cuomo used an arcane rule called a “message of necessity” to prohibit debate and eliminate the possibility of opponents mounting any kind of objections whatsoever . Another case of Dem’s using the NY State version of the nuclear option .

” Since 1938, The state Constitution has required a proposed bill to age for three days before a vote. It says:

§14. No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage….

Unless the government says so:

…unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon,…

” Writing for the Tenth Amendment Center, a person finds oneself spending a lot of time and pixels defending the concept of nullification. These defenses generally take the form of answers to two questions. Is nullification a legally valid concept? Is nullification a good idea? The arguments about whether or not nullification is a good idea can often be split into whether it’s a good idea from a practical sense, and whether it’s a good idea from the philosophical sense.

In this essay, I will address all of those questions. First, using a single argument, which I believe is conclusive, I will demonstrate that nullification is, indisputably, a valid legal concept under our political system. Having accomplished that, I will next show that under our foundational principles, nullification is a philosophical necessity. Finally, I will advance an argument that the use of nullification will lead to an overall healthier society.

Nullification is how the states can increase anti-fragility in our political and economic systems. Washington wants to increase its own ability to thrive from the unexpected by diminishing ours. The states can, and should, use nullification to resist that tendency, force decentralization, and decrease our political system’s exposure to catastrophic harm. Eventually, this country will be exposed to an existential crisis, a black swan – as Taleb terms it. Maybe in our lifetimes, maybe in our children’s or grandchildren’s. Exactly when it will happen, no one knows, but it will happen. When it happens, antifragility will determine the survivors. If we do nothing to decrease fragility in our political and economic systems, we are in grave danger. Nullification is the most effective tool to decentralize powers which have been usurped by a recalcitrant federal government. “

Assembly Bill 351, commonly called the California Liberty Preservation Act, has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown making it statewide policy to refuse compliance with federal attempts to enforce “indefinite detention” made famous by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). What began as a marginal issue with little legislative support has unified Californians of all persuasions and brought attention to the proper role the people and their states play in a constitutional republic.

AB351 now makes it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government. It reads, in part:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. [emphasis added]

This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else. Donnelly’s legislation broadened the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it. Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

This can make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.”

” UPDATE 8:20pm CST: The Senate Override vote, of 22-12, failed by 1. 23 votes were needed to concur with the house and override the veto. CLICK HERE for next action steps.

Jefferson City, Mo (September 11, 2013) – Today, the Missouri State House of Representatives sent more than just a message, they passed would could arguably be the strongest state-level protection of the right to keep and bear arms in modern times. The vote was 109-49

By overriding Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of House Bill 436 (HB436), the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, the Missouri state legislature gave a resounding “No!” to all federal gun laws, rules, regulations and orders – past, present and future.”

” Cato Institute chairman Robert Levy’s recent article, “The Limits of Nullification” is nothing less than an amalgamation of revisionist history covered in judicial fairy dust. His assertions are premised upon a flawed understanding of certain fundamental principles and constitutional history. Levy conveniently ignores them and, consequently, drawn inaccurate conclusions.

Let’s dissect this piece by piece.

Levy implies the Constitution was ratified by the people acting in their aggregate political capacity – a single unitary body politic. In fact, many people believe this falsehood because they rely on the words “We the People of the United States” in the Preamble. The initial drafts of the Constitution named each and every state. They said, We the people of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, etc. But, Article VII of the Constitution states, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same”.

Each state is independent, free, and sovereign. The ratification happened within each State by the people acting in their highest political capacity. Each state voted up or down on the ratification. There was no popular vote across all thirteen states. There was no majority of people (50%, 75%, or 95%) of the people that could ratify the Constitution. The people of each free, independent, and sovereign State ratified the Constitution independent from every other state.

Moreover, New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution. The nine states ratifying the Constitution could not bind any of the remaining states. In fact, the Virginia and New York ratification conventions were aware that New Hampshire had ratified thus putting the Constitution into effect for the states so ratifying. Both states continued their conventions and proceeded with their votes for or against the Constitution.”

” The battle over Missouri Nullification via the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act underscores just how deeply the federal government has dug its claws into affairs of the states.

If passed into law, HB436 would nullify all federal acts violating the Second Amendment. Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill after it overwhelmingly passed both houses of the Missouri legislature. Lawmakers will consider overriding the veto as early as Sept. 11. (ACTION ITEMS TO OVERRIDE VETO BELOW)

Nullification opponents have ratcheted up pressure over the last few weeks, trotting out federal supremacists in academia and the media to parrot the predictable fallacious arguments asserting the “supremacy clause” grants the federal government unconditional authority to do whatever it wants.”

” Unless a handful of wavering Democrats change their minds, the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature is expected to enact a statute next month nullifying all federal gun laws in the state and making it a crime for federal agents to enforce them here. A Missourian arrested under federal firearm statutes would even be able to sue the arresting officer.

The law amounts to the most far-reaching states’ rights endeavor in the country, the far edge of a growing movement known as “nullification” in which a state defies federal power.

The Missouri Republican Party thinks linking guns to nullification works well, said Matt Wills, the party’s director of communications, thanks in part to the push by President Obama for tougher gun laws. “It’s probably one of the best states’ rights issues that the country’s got going right now,” he said.”

Goliath Loses

” “I want the government people to get the hell out of my life and yours! And the only way that’s going to happen is if we work together to nullify all of them into oblivion.”–Michael Boldin, Tenth Amendment Center“

” The state of Texas continues to fight back hard against federal intrusions, especially in the area of gun control as President Obama and some Washington lawmakers push for new laws infringing upon the Second Amendment’s right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Gun rights advocates in the state have applauded the measure, saying it would serve as a bulwark against future erosions of the Second Amendment within Texas. What’s more, many are pointing to recent comments by Fox News legal analyst and contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano that such widespread noncompliance with new federal gun control statutes would make them “nearly impossible to enforce.”

” America endured eight years of war and 25,000 casualties rather than submit God-given, Natural Rights to government control. Yet in the 150 years since the civil war, we have seen the United States Federal Government expand its scope of power and authority and our freedoms eroded almost exponentially with each change of the executive.

Today the US has the largest, most powerful government in the history of humankind – a government far more controlling, taxing, and demanding than our founding generation abolished.

The new law declares that the federal government has no power to regulate guns manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas.

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.

The legislation made it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty regulating ammunition made, sold and kept in the state because the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.

The law became effective only a week ago, but already Holder has leapt into action, firing off a letter to the governor of Kansas threatening to take “all appropriate action including litigation if necessary” to prevent the state of Kansas from protecting the 2nd Amendment. (Amazing for a guy who didn’t even know about his own department’s gun-running operation, Fast and Furious until months after a border patrol agent was killed by one of its guns.) But when a state passes a law he doesn’t like – this Attorney General is FAST!“

Tenther News 03-17-13: The Nullification Movement Goes Local

” Last week in Southwest Utah, the Iron County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously in passing an Iron County 2nd Amendment Protection Resolution. This is the second Resolution passed in the county, the first being the Cedar City 2nd Amendment Resolution passed by the City Council in February.

The Resolution makes it clear that the county does not recognize any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, executive orders, or regulations that violate the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. It also requires the sheriff to take a stand to protect the right to keep and bear arms. It reads, in part:

“it shall be the duty of the Sheriff of Iron County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

Iron County Sheriff Mark Gower is fully on board with the resolution. He said, “I will not allow anyone to come into this county and violate the Constitutions of the United States or Utah. If I have to stand in the street and stop that from happening I would do it.” He further said, “I have refused to sign any agreements or contracts with Homeland Security or any other federal department and no one can come in and preempt the local control of our law enforcement. The US Constitution will not be violated on my watch.”

In Maine, the town of Millinocket also passed a 2nd Amendment resolution last week. Town Councilors Jimmy Busque and Michelle Anderson both explained the importance of this Resolution to those present. Busque explained the importance of the resolution and why its passage was required, followed by Anderson discussing the history of nullification. The resolution passed by a vote of 5-2.

A similar resolution is being considered on Monday night in Upper Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania. It would 1) Condemn federal overreach and infringement upon the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms; 2) Express support for, and urge immediate passage of PA House Bill 357 and 3) Reserve the right of the Township to take measures necessary to prevent enforcement of federal acts regarding the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms.

Also in Maine, the town of Brooksville held a public referendum in support of a Food Freedom Ordinance, which nullifies unconstitutional overreach from the FDA. The ordinance exempts “producers and processors” of local foods in town from state and federal licensure and inspection, so long as they leave the middleman out and sell their produce, baked goods, dairy and meat directly to customers. It passed by a vote of 112-64.”